User talk:Benc: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:12, 29 August 2004 editBenc (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,553 edits →Flags ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:17, 29 August 2004 edit undoBenc (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,553 edits arhivedNext edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:
	#]		#]
	#]		#]
			#]

		⚫	#]
	== May-December romance ==
		⚫	#]
	Thanks for the good job on the merge-redirect. I think it's important that "May-December romance" remain as a a redirect; while the new article is more solid, it is also less searchable. I've done a Google search for relevant famous May-December couples, and have not come up with very much outside of Hollywood, yet I know the Upper Class (whatever that may be) are also very much into marriages of convenience or arranged marriages, as are a number of other cultures. Seems no one on the net is talking about it though. ]] 23:05, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
		⚫	#]
	:I agree, "May-December romance" should remain a redirect. Thank ''you'' for writing most of the article's content. :-) ]] 23:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			#]

			#]
⚫	== ] ==
			#]
	I looked at your sandbox and saw that you were planning on doing a few things to the image, so I went ahead and did them. It should be good now. I also deleted ] because it was a degraded duplicate of the PNG version. It was a ''bit'' smaller, but the size wasn't worth the lack of quality. The latest version I uploaded is only 6.4 KB anyway. ]] 04:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			<!--
	:Thank you. (I removed it from ], too.) ]] 04:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			#]

			-->
⚫	==Merge and redirect instead of VfD listings==
	Hi, Benc, thanks for your patience with my oldermenyoungerwomenolderwomenyoungermen confusion on VfD. (My defense would be that confusion was kind of appropriate.) I was very interested by the comment you made:

	''In fact, I don't think ''any'' of the three pages should've been listed on VfD... the nominator should've merged them and listed it for cleanup.''

	You can do that ...? I've never thought of being bold in just that way, but it would certainly save a lot of time for everybody. You're saying that if I see a clutch of substubs that belong together, I should just change them all to redirects, merge the text in a new article, and send it to Cleanup, (or clean it myself), without first consulting anybody? Wouldn't that outrage a lot of people, who want each information atom to have its own entry? There seem to be a lot of them around. Or am I supposed to start a whole thing on each of the stubs' talk pages first? That would make the procedure even more timewasting than VfD, I think. Not sure I understood your meaning, but I'm intrigued. ] 10:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	:Yes, you certainly can do that — as they say, ]! A lot of time is wasted on ''talking'' about changing articles, and VfD is often a hot spot for wasting time, unfortunately. A lot of Wikipedians don't realize that a significant number of articles on VfD don't ''need'' to be on there, if someone would only step in and fix them! It took me a little while to realize this, myself, and only after asking explicitly. Check out ]. Anyway, thank you for your concerns, and good luck rescuing articles from VfD — Misplaced Pages needs more editors like you who are willing to whip those stubs up into something useful. :-) ]] 10:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
	::P.S. - as far as outraging those who want everything ''just so'' — don't worry about that for one minute. I've never had anyone complain to me about articles I've rescued from VfD. ]] 10:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

⚫	== European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 ==
	Hi there,

	I wonder would you consider reversing your decision to delete ]. I have substantially rewritten it. A united EU team is not going to happen. I've discussed potential EU co-operation towards the olympics, and kept the table. I believe the table is valid, for us Europeans/EUians to see how the area has fared as a whole. Please comment on my talk page if you still feel the article should be deleted.

	] <FONT SIZE=-1><FONT COLOR="green">█</FONT><FONT COLOR="white">█</FONT><FONT COLOR="darkorange">█</FONT></FONT> ] 00:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
	:Response on your talk page. (The short of it: I decided to keep my vote to ''move'' the contents of the EU-Olympic article to an article with a broader (and therefore more NPOV) subject area.) ]] 07:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	== Transparent Aluminum ==
	Good edits on this page. I didn't even think of the whales part as being a spoiler, so thanks for putting that in. ] \| ] 04:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
	:Thank you. ]] 02:19, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	== Re: ==
	See ]. ] ] 22:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	== Insanity templates ==

	Thank you for nominating the insanity templates for deletion. I was thinking about them on my way home last night and had decided to nominate them myself. You beat me to it. ] 13:15, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	== Anarchist Symbolism ==		== Anarchist Symbolism ==

	I thought (I had hoped) that we were coming to a consensus on the anarchocapitalist symbol issue, but an anonymous user has significantly altered or removed (I don't know if "vandalized" is the right term) the section repeatedly in the last day. I'm not sure what to do about this. Do you have any suggestions? --] 15:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)		I thought (I had hoped) that we were coming to a consensus on the anarchocapitalist symbol issue, but an anonymous user has significantly altered or removed (I don't know if "vandalized" is the right term) the section repeatedly in the last day. I'm not sure what to do about this. Do you have any suggestions? --] 15:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
	:Responses at: ] and ] ]] 02:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)		:Responses at: ] and ] ]] 02:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	== adminship ==		== adminship ==

	Dear Benc,		Dear Benc,

Line 63:		Line 34:

	== Exploding whale talk page ==		== Exploding whale talk page ==

	Hi, I notice you added a FAC contested tag to the exploding whale article. Why? All the objections were dealt with! - ] 01:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)		Hi, I notice you added a FAC contested tag to the exploding whale article. Why? All the objections were dealt with! - ] 01:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
	:The <tt><nowiki>{{fac-contested}}</nowiki></tt> tag is for ''previous'' candidates; the <tt><nowiki>{{fac}}</nowiki></tt> tag is for ''current'' ones. The tag change was part of a mass update — I changed <tt><nowiki>{{fac}}</nowiki></tt> to <tt><nowiki>{{fac-contested}}</nowiki></tt> for all articles that were in ]. It wasn't me adding an objection to the article. In fact, I hadn't even read the FAC discussion until just now. :-)		:The <tt><nowiki>{{fac-contested}}</nowiki></tt> tag is for ''previous'' candidates; the <tt><nowiki>{{fac}}</nowiki></tt> tag is for ''current'' ones. The tag change was part of a mass update — I changed <tt><nowiki>{{fac}}</nowiki></tt> to <tt><nowiki>{{fac-contested}}</nowiki></tt> for all articles that were in ]. It wasn't me adding an objection to the article. In fact, I hadn't even read the FAC discussion until just now. :-)

Revision as of 04:17, 29 August 2004

Anarchist Symbolism

I thought (I had hoped) that we were coming to a consensus on the anarchocapitalist symbol issue, but an anonymous user has significantly altered or removed (I don't know if "vandalized" is the right term) the section repeatedly in the last day. I'm not sure what to do about this. Do you have any suggestions? --Pmetzger 15:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Responses at: Talk:Anarchist_symbolism#Vandalism and User_talk:213.100.52.73 • Benc • 02:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

adminship

Dear Benc,

Yes, I will treat the "keys to the mop closet" well. :-)
Thank you very much for your vote in (strong) support of my nomination for adminship.

-- PFHLai 03:51, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Flags

Thanks for the tip. Io 14:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Welcome. • Benc • 04:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Featured article archiving

Benc - (speaking as the chief maintainer of the featured articles and candidates) - your edits to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Featured log have made them quite a bit prettier, but totally unmaintainable. It took me upwards of 10 minutes to archive 5 nominations (that works out to roughly an hour a week spent archiving). Simply put - I refuse. (for the record, your edits are a form of m:instruction creep, which I oppose in all forms). I think we need to work out something better. →Raul654 05:14, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Exploding whale talk page

Hi, I notice you added a FAC contested tag to the exploding whale article. Why? All the objections were dealt with! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The {{fac-contested}} tag is for previous candidates; the {{fac}} tag is for current ones. The tag change was part of a mass update — I changed {{fac}} to {{fac-contested}} for all articles that were in Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. It wasn't me adding an objection to the article. In fact, I hadn't even read the FAC discussion until just now. :-)

Looking back at the discussion, it looks like Meelar, Pcb21, and Eequor had objections that were never withdrawn, so that's why someone archived the nomination (it wasn't me). FWIW, I would probably support the article if it were re-nominated. • Benc • 04:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)